Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- UMNO is definitely NOT Racist!
- #OCCUPYPARLIMEN: Memorial service for death of Malaysian Parliament
- The Mamak Dilemma – Shame, Opportunity, Assimilation, and an Identity Lost
- It’s people’s right to disagree
- How Laws are enacted in Malaysia
| UMNO is definitely NOT Racist! Posted: 30 Nov 2011 10:50 PM PST On the basis of the many ridiculous and "kurang ajar" statements made by Mahathir, Muhyiddin, Najib and the UMNOputras in the past and in the current UMNO assembly, it is natural and reasonable to label them all as racists. But let us analyse the facts to see if this is a logical label. By Ken At the current UMNO assembly, Muhyiddin proclaimed that UMNO is NOT racist. He uttered this statement in spite of the fact that he, the Deputy Prime Minister of multi-racial Malaysia, has unequivocally declared that he is "Malay first" and "Malaysian second". Muhyiddin's "Malay first" declaration, while confirming that he is not a nationalist (and unfit to be DPM), does not confirm that he is a racist, and he may be right that UMNO is not racist. And Muhyiddin's mentor and guru, Dr. Mahathir, has also argued repeatedly that parties such as DAP are racist but not UMNO. However, on the basis of the many ridiculous and "kurang ajar" statements made by Mahathir, Muhyiddin, Najib and the UMNOputras in the past and in the current UMNO assembly, it is natural and reasonable to label them all as racists. But let us analyse the facts to see if this is a logical label. According to Mahathir, Najib, Muhyiddin and other UMNOputras, the Malays are far behind the other races in wealth and development and also form the majority of the poor. General observation and anecdotal data do suggest that there may be truth in what these UMNOputras say about widespread poverty among the Malays. Why is it that the Malays have not prospered in spite of the NEP for more than 40 years? How is it that Mahathir who wielded total control over all, including the Sultans, for 22 years (and who continues to indirectly control) could not rectify the poor state of the Malays in spite of all the power he had? If he could not, who else can or will ever? Why is that a large proportion of Malays are still poor in spite of all the development since independence? Surely, there must be a logical explanation for the continued poor state of these Malays. A racist is someone who does all he can for another of his race on the basis of ethnicity, and ignores, disadvantages or undermines others, even if deserving, solely because of racial difference. Thus, if UMNO were racist, it would have done all it could to help the poor Malays. With the ever-powerful Mahathir as PM for 22 years, UMNO as the government for more than 50 years and NEP in force for more than 40 years, even casual support on the basis of race or otherwise, would have uplifted the poor Malay significantly. Mahathir and UMNO didn't have to generate the required wealth through ingenuity and hard work for this task - Mother Malaysia is and has been well endowed with oil, gas, timber, land other natural resources to provide hundreds of billions for the benefit of the Malays and her other children. But somehow, all this huge wealth never found its way to the poor Malay. If UMNO were truly racist, the fate of the poor Malay would have changed, but this has happened, at best, only in a marginal way. A racist would be troubled by the plight of his race and would be prepared to make all possible sacrifices, including sharing his wealth. Has any UMNOputra shared his wealth with the poor Malay? None worthy of mention. Instead, UMNOputras have become very rich and the gap between them and the poor Malay has widened - the gap between the rich and poor in Malaysia is widest amongst the Malays compared to other races. The UMNOputras have plundered the wealth of the nation under the pretext of helping the poor Malays, and amassed billions for themselves, their families and friends. There are many Malay corporate empires which are very large and prominent - Mahathir empire (Mines, YTL, San Miguel, etc.), Najib empire (CIMB, etc.), Badawi empire, Daim empire, Taib Muhamad empire, Syed Al-Bukhary empire, etc. If the UMNOputras were racist, they would not have focused on amassing such huge wealth for themselves but would instead have focused on sharing the available wealth with their race. What is strange is that while claiming to champion their Malay race, the UMNOputras almost always establish business partnerships with non-Malay businessmen, knowing that these non-Malay cronies would use the opportunity to also amass wealth at the expense of the Malays and other Malaysians. If the UMNOputras were truly racist, they would not collaborate with the non-Malays. It is simply not logical to do so if "Ketuanan Melayu" is the goal and mission. Equally, if the UMNOputras were racist, why would the Chinese cronies (whose race is often UMNO's target for racism rhetoric and drama), collaborate with them? What is clear is that UMNO and its leaders, Mahathir, Muhyiddin, Najib, etc. are NOT racist. They are just evil and corrupt. They are a despicable lot who are prepared to sell their race, religion and nation for money. Money is what matters to them, not moral and ethics and certainly not race and definitely not religion (this lot is guilty of all the major sins in Islam, from corruption, cheating and stealing to adultery and gambling). The poor Malay is merely an official license for UMNO to rob and plunder the nation. UMNO is definitely NOT racist - UMNO is totally CORRUPT and EVIL and beyond redemption!!! The kampong Malays must be made aware of these facts for GE13. |
| #OCCUPYPARLIMEN: Memorial service for death of Malaysian Parliament Posted: 30 Nov 2011 10:57 AM PST THE MALAYSIAN PARLIAMENT The Parliament leaves behind 28 million heartbroken Malaysians, including the Fisherman, the Postal Worker, the Nasi Lemak Mak Cik, the Kindergarten Teacher, the Retired Old Man, the Teenage Boy, the Unemployed Fresh Graduate and many others of who looked to it as a place where their voices could be heard.
|
| The Mamak Dilemma – Shame, Opportunity, Assimilation, and an Identity Lost Posted: 29 Nov 2011 10:53 PM PST I have no disrespect for the Malay culture which is beautiful. We can all learn a thing or two from Malay adat. However, I do hold a grudge against the deliberate extermination of one's own heritage. I further find it offensive when Indian Muslims, in their eagerness to convert, use Machiavellian means to identify themselves as Malay. It demonstrates a lack of dignity and self-worth. By Mohd Ikhram Merican "How shall a man escape from his ancestors, or draw off from his veins the black drop which he drew from his father's or mother's life?" - Ralph Waldo Emerson For some time now I've felt that the Indian Muslim or Mamak community at large suffers from a pitiful cultural and identity crisis. Being a Muslim of Indian origin, I have first-hand experience with the dilemma afflicting this community that has contributed so much to the culture, politics, and economy of Malaysia for well over a few centuries. I also worry that so many members of this, my community, are shedding their identity by becoming over-zealous converts. Some of the offensive and snide remarks by an individual with clear Indian ancestry at the on-going UMNO General Assembly have motivated me to finally pen this letter. My ancestral beginnings in Malaysia start with my great-grandfather, K.K Daud, in Penang in the early 20th century; although I suspect earlier generations were already making trade excursions to the Malay Peninsula. My grandfather, D Mohamed Ibraheem, born in India, was brought to study at the Methodist Boys School in Penang. He was a scholar, a sportsman, and a gentleman. These exact traits, decades later, were to become my obligation at my Alma Mater, the Victoria Institution. My grandfather was a linguist of sorts. He learned Latin, was sufficiently proficient in Malay, and a master in English and Tamil. All of his children bore a combination of Tamil and Muslim names, a testament to his pride as a Tamilian and an unashamed celebration of his Indian roots. He worked hard, contributed to Penang's economy, was a well respected member of his community, and raised a good family. For all intents and purposes, he was well assimilated into the fabric of Penangite society. He did not have to shed his cultural identity to do this. My father and his generation, like their preceding generations, spoke excellent Tamil. Most of them were privileged to have an English education. A significant number of them have gone on to becoming prominent captains of industry in Malaysia and abroad. None of them coveted handouts from the government or needed to shake-off their "Indian-ess" to progress in Malaysia. It was never an option. Their parents worked hard to educate them. My generation does not speak Tamil as well as the previous generations. Most of us speak English or Malay. Suddenly it has become important to be seen as practicing Malay culture. Article 160 of the Constitution states that a "Malay" is a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom and -
Many Indian Muslims have used or would like to use this provision to "convert". I have no disrespect for the Malay culture which is beautiful. We can all learn a thing or two from Malay adat. However, I do hold a grudge against the deliberate extermination of one's own heritage. I further find it offensive when Indian Muslims, in their eagerness to convert, use Machiavellian means to identify themselves as Malay. It demonstrates a lack of dignity and self-worth. Naturally, I feel sick when I read of the charades of UMNO politicians, academicians, and community leaders masquerading as Malays, spewing hatred against other races, sometimes against their own roots. Even when they're challenged as to their real identity, they shamelessly defend their false Malay roots. For some, Tamil is still spoken in whispers, in the privacy of their homes, like it were a "dirty" parlance. Why? For special rights? For economic handouts? My grandfather worked very, very hard for providence. So did the men of his generation. The early Indian Muslim traders who came to these shores were an industrious lot who earned their bread. They contributed to Malaysia's rich heritage without becoming cultural orphans. They cherished their roots. Hardship and experience polished them. It earned them monopolies in certain trades that last till today. This legacy is being destroyed. A culture and heritage is disappearing only to be replaced by a false sense of security. In the process, the Indian Muslims are offending not only their own race and the Chinese, but many Malays too. In the long run, we as a community will isolate ourselves from our roots and the nation in which we want so much to assimilate with. "Distinguished ancestors shed a powerful light on their descendants, and forbid the concealment either of their merits or of their demerits." - Gaius Sallustius Crispus |
| It’s people’s right to disagree Posted: 29 Nov 2011 10:44 PM PST By P Ramakrishnan, Past President of Aliran The Minister in the Prime Minister's department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, doesn't seem to understand basic things concerning democracy. His notion of democracy is woefully dismal and disappointing. His ignorance on issues of democracy is alarming!
His stand seems to suggest that only political parties and politicians have the right to disagree and speak up and if you are not in either of these categories, you don't have the right to criticise or disagree. This is utter nonsense. This right to disagree or criticise is not the monopoly of a political party or politician. This God-given right is the birth-right of every individual, and it is enshrined in the Constitution. The right to freedom of assembly, the right to speech of expression and the right to freedom of association are the inalienable rights of every citizen. There are no caveats placed on these rights. Nazri, therefore, has no right to insist that one must belong to a political party to disagree with the Barisan Nasional's policies. The Constitution has no such provisions barring citizens from speaking up or championing a cause. In a democracy, citizens have a role to play and participate in every aspect of governance without belonging to a political party and without being a politician. Nazri must be reminded that, according to A.d. Benoist, "The highest measure of democracy is neither the 'extent of freedom' nor the 'extent of equality', but rather the highest measure of participation." |
| How Laws are enacted in Malaysia Posted: 29 Nov 2011 10:35 PM PST By Hakim Joe Malaysians need to know this as part of their right and privilege as a citizen of the country. Only then are we able to understand how Parliament works and how laws are passed. The Parliament is divided into two houses i.e. the Dewan Rakyat or the Lower House and the Dewan Negara or Senate. First of all, Parliament only meets from Monday to Thursday when in session. These sessions are published online and viewers can check them at The Dewan Rakyat is made up from the elected representatives in a General Election of a Parliamentary seat (as opposed to a State seat). The Senate, which consists of 70 members, is made up from 2 each selected from every state (total of 26) and the remaining 44 It must be noted that the original Constitution of Malaysia, drafted before Merdeka, only provided for 16 individuals to be appointed by the Agong instead of the current 70 individuals. The intent was to place them in the minority so as to protect the states' interest against federal encroachments. With 44 members or 62.8%, getting anything passed in the Senate is but a formality for the government. The term of office is 3 years and senators may only be reappointed once, consecutively or non-consecutively. A proposed Act of Law begins its journey when a particular government minister or ministry prepares a first draft with the assistance of the Attorney General's Department. This draft is known as the Bill and the year it was drafted shall be appended to it at the rear. When the government minister or ministry finalizes drafting the Bill, it shall be sent to the Cabinet for its first discussion session. During this time, the first amendments (if any) shall be made and only after it has been agreed upon shall the Bill be introduced into Parliament. A Bill may originate from either of the Houses with one exception, the "Money Bill". Subject to Article 67 of the Federal Constitution, the "Money Bill" must originate from the Dewan Rakyat and can only be introduced by a Minister. The House, which a Bill is originated, shall send it to the other House once the Bill has been passed. After the other House passes the Bill, it must then be presented to the Agong for his assent under the Article 66(3) of the Federal Constitution. Prior to the 1983 Malaysian Constitutional Crisis, the Agong may withhold his assent to any Bills that have passed both Houses. However, Mahathir pushed forward a set of amendments to Article 66 of the Constitution that set the time limit of the Agong to veto a Bill within 30 days. Nowadays Article 66(4) states that the Agong must assent to the Bill by causing the Public Seal to be affixed thereto. This must be completed within 30 days from the date a Bill is being presented to him. The Federal Constitution provides that a Bill will automatically become law at the expiration of the 30 days period specified in the like manner as if he had assented thereto, should the Agong, for whatever reason, fails to give his assent to the Bill within the specified period. Nonetheless if the Agong disagrees with the Bill, HRH can return it to Parliament with a list of suggested amendments. Parliament must then reconsider the Bill and its proposed amendments and return it to the Agong within 30 days, if they pass it again, either adopting The first reading of the Bill happens when the minister or his deputy submits it to Parliament. This is a formality and only the title of the Bill will be read out. No draft copies of the Bill are distributed out. The Speaker will then set a date and time for the Second Reading and this is usually within the next few days unless the government maintains that all three Readings be done immediately. Usually draft copies of the Bill will only be distributed out to all Members of Parliament a few days before the Second Reading. However, in the event that the government requests that all three Readings be completed immediately, the draft copies will be distributed promptly and be debated, as it is, on the same day. This is usually executed to prevent the Opposition from discussing it amongst themselves and/or to keep the public from getting involved in the proceedings. The Speaker may disallow it but this has never happened before as the government appoints the Speaker to his position. However, the Speaker reserves the privilege to appoint or limit any number of MPs to be included in the debate during the Second Reading.\ Regardless of whatever happens in the course of the debate during the Second Reading, the government can summon for the Third Reading at any time they desire. Once again the Speaker may veto it and once again it has never happened before. The Third Reading is the actual voting process and a two-thirds majority is required to pass the Bill. Should the Bill be passed, it is sent forth to the Dewan Negara, where the three Readings are carried out again. The Dewan Negara may not formally reject any Bill but choose not to pass the Bill, but this only delays its passage by a month, or in some cases, a year. Once this stipulated period expires, the Bill is considered to have been passed by the Senate. With 44 members and 2 members from any government-controlled state, getting any Bill past Dewan Negara is rather "a piece of cake" and can actually be accomplished under 5 minutes. Additionally, the Dewan Negara is not affected by the elections for the Dewan Rakyat, and senators continue to hold office despite the Dewan Rakyat's dissolution for an election. After the Second Reading, any Member of Parliament can call for a Special Committee to discuss the technical details of the Bill or be submitted before a Parliamentary Select Committee for review. Nevertheless, the Speaker can disallow it and promptly call for the In some rare cases, the government actually prepares a Government White Paper containing particular proposals that will eventually be incorporated into a Bill. White Papers are an informal name for a Parliamentary Paper expressing a proposed government policy or action on a topic of current concern, or a Bill seeking passage through Parliament. This actually happened to the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971. The Opposition is also permitted to propose any Bills to Parliament and these are identified as the Private Members' Bill (PMB). To present a PMB, the MP in question must seek the leave of the House to debate the Bill before it is moved in Parliament. Originally, the Lastly, no laws shall come into force until it has been gazetted or published in the Government Gazette under the Article 66(5) of the Federal Constitution. Only once that has been completed shall the Bill become Law. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan